When you compare current questions to old questions, one difference to keep in mind is that old questions varied wildly in difficulty within a single packet. There would be several tossups per match asking for things I never heard of, and there would be several tossups per match based on things I learned in 3rd grade. Packets now are more uniform in difficulty, which leads in some part to the scoring increases Matt has seen--it is now possible for decent teams to know just about all the tossups by the end of the question, and they rarely will 0 a bonus. Oddly enough, the questions may sound harder as you play them, because there are a lot of tough lead-ins and middle clues on academic material that most teams can't buzz in on, whereas before it was more common to hear something simple early in the question. Additionally, there used to be more easy bonus sweeps. People would just roll their eyes at the very difficult questions, but a small number of unanswered tossups has a significant impact on overall scoring.

David ReinsteinPACE President, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT, IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)

I'm going to slightly change the way we discuss this since you all have been addressing things. Besides, it's good exercise for me as I plan Bootcamp.

What do you think needs to be done to reduce the gap or disparity between the elite teams and players and the rest of the teams? Between the elite and the above average teams? What should we do about the "game show" tournaments like Hi-Q, It's Ac, or those who run tournaments on Great Auk questions? How do we get more teams into the "elite" or "real" level of quiz bowl play? What is preventing those teams from going to the next level?

ILoveReeses wrote:I'm going to slightly change the way we discuss this since you all have been addressing things. Besides, it's good exercise for me as I plan Bootcamp.

What do you think needs to be done to reduce the gap or disparity between the elite teams and players and the rest of the teams? Between the elite and the above average teams? What should we do about the "game show" tournaments like Hi-Q, It's Ac, or those who run tournaments on Great Auk questions? How do we get more teams into the "elite" or "real" level of quiz bowl play? What is preventing those teams from going to the next level?

A lot of those teams have kids that don't want to commit time into QB that much, and would rather focus on other things. And of course there are advisors who cna hinder a team either by not taking them to tournaments and exposing them or running shoddy and/or infrequent practices.

Nick PetrilliBloomfield High School 2009Freelance/Mercenary Moderator, TD, Player, and Reader

I think a big problem is that there are tons of teams who don't know about the Stanford/ACF/quizbowlpackets.com archives and who honestly don't know that there is any other type of quizbowl then their crappy local format. I see teams like this at every Missouri tournament I go to.

Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

Deesy Does It wrote:I think a big problem is that there are tons of teams who don't know about the Stanford/ACF/quizbowlpackets.com archives and who honestly don't know that there is any other type of quizbowl then their crappy local format. I see teams like this at every Missouri tournament I go to.

Charlie,The followup: if they did know about the packets, what next? What would it take to convince them that these questions are truly the standard of elite-level quiz bowl? To play devil's advocate, what's wrong with the local format (implying "there's nothing wrong with it")?

ILoveReeses wrote:What do you think needs to be done to reduce the gap or disparity between the elite teams and players and the rest of the teams? Between the elite and the above average teams? What should we do about the "game show" tournaments like Hi-Q, It's Ac, or those who run tournaments on Great Auk questions? How do we get more teams into the "elite" or "real" level of quiz bowl play? What is preventing those teams from going to the next level?

There's nothing that necessarily needs to be done. Different teams have different goals.

You've seen my team on the circuit several times, but our primary goals revolve around the It's Academic television show. Why do you see us on the circuit? Because playing in tournaments helps us prepare by playing teams we wouldn't normally meet, (hopefully) learning material, and honing our strategic and other thinking and reasoning skills. I've had teams that were capable of moving toward the next level, and they did so. And I've also had teams that had difficulty just with the material on It's Academic. Currently, I have a few students who I think are capable of moving to the next level, but there seems to be an issue with the time commitment required to do so.

Teams that continue to move toward higher levels should be rewarded and encouraged. This isn't a small commitment of time and effort. By the same token, we as a community must recognize that they may remain in the minority for quite some time or even forever. Tournament organizers must take this into account when planning their tournaments. I applaud Chris Ray for organizing WOQ. This was a unique opportunity for the top tier of teams to compete. But to hold a local tournament with a similar goal, except in a few areas of the country, is probably a losing proposition. The top echelon of teams needs to remain aware that, if they raise their money through running tournaments, they'll need to cater to the bulk of the quiz teams (whatever that is, and I'm certainly not arguing that my team is part of this bulk). So maybe that's the answer. More regional or nationwide tournaments for the better teams to compete. I took my team to WOQ knowing the questions were enough above them that they may not learn that much material. I did this beacause there was nothing better suited that weekend, and because it still provided them the opportunity to practice other elements of the game that are important.

Also, at least in high school, I don't see any particular problem with continuing to write questions on the same topics, of course updating as newer significant items come to bear as time passes. The students answering questions on these topics four years ago have now graduated, so even though you're still asking similar questions, you're asking them to an entirely new group of students. Keep in mind, that because we have continual student turnover, if we believe we should be continually and gradually increasing difficulty, we're likely to reach some sort of breaking point.

Howard wrote:You've seen my team on the circuit several times, but our primary goals revolve around the It's Academic television show.

But, this is entirely ridiculous and counterproductive to the idea of quizbowl as a chance to learn important things. Believe it or not, I and the rest of the board are too polite and too appreciative of other things that you do for the game to point it out every single time you mention it, but in the context of this thread it's important to note it before it becomes the premise for any further arguments. Building a team around a TV show, especially It's Academic, which has pretty much the worst format and worst questions of any quizbowl-like activity in the United States, is exactly what leads to "bad quizbowl" and feeling overmatched on even regular questions.

Howard wrote:You've seen my team on the circuit several times, but our primary goals revolve around the It's Academic television show.

But, this is entirely ridiculous and counterproductive to the idea of quizbowl as a chance to learn important things. Believe it or not, I and the rest of the board are too polite and too appreciative of other things that you do for the game to point it out every single time you mention it, but in the context of this thread it's important to note it before it becomes the premise for any further arguments. Building a team around a TV show, especially It's Academic, which has pretty much the worst format and worst questions of any quizbowl-like activity in the United States, is exactly what leads to "bad quizbowl" and feeling overmatched on even regular questions.

But where's the problem when it's their prerogative? He stated that he's had kids that struggled with those questions, so why send them into the meat grinder that would be NAQT questions for them? And he stated he had kids capable, and encouraged it. He also stated the #1 issue that keeps teams who perform as you call it, "bad quizbowl" from getting better and that is time. A lot of teams have kids who, for them, QB is a secondary activity. They can not possibly be asked to commit two-three practices a week for QB, learning and studying when not in practice to get better for NAQT or something like that. There is nothing wrong with these teams, in fact these teams can be a gateway for their players to learn about better QB opportunities which would then possibly promote the growth of "good quizbowl."

Last edited by TheCzarMan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nick PetrilliBloomfield High School 2009Freelance/Mercenary Moderator, TD, Player, and Reader

Howard wrote:I've had teams that were capable of moving toward the next level, and they did so. And I've also had teams that had difficulty just with the material on It's Academic. Currently, I have a few students who I think are capable of moving to the next level, but there seems to be an issue with the time commitment required to do so.

In addition to what Matt said, my problem here is twofold: (1) you've pretty much admitted that pyramidal questions are a step above It's Ac in a test of quizbowl ability and whatnot, and (2) as such, by setting lower goals for your team, aren't you making it more difficult for them to excel beyond that? I'd think that it would be pretty difficult to gauge who would be ready to move "to the next level" while playing speed questions, because you never know how someone's going to do with the goals that they're given. You can have someone (like me, for example) familiar for their entire life with Jeopardy-level material, upon first encountering pyramidal QB, make an effort to get good at it and succeed therein. I'm sure that, had I focused my efforts mainly on speed questions, I would be about as good at those as I am at pyramidal ones now, but I would not be half the pyramidal player I am now.

Also, at least in high school, I don't see any particular problem with continuing to write questions on the same topics, of course updating as newer significant items come to bear as time passes. The students answering questions on these topics four years ago have now graduated, so even though you're still asking similar questions, you're asking them to an entirely new group of students. Keep in mind, that because we have continual student turnover, if we believe we should be continually and gradually increasing difficulty, we're likely to reach some sort of breaking point.

You say this as if the entire pool of players is recycled every four years. That's not at all true, of course; instead, as players get older, they pass along information to their younger teammates, or perhaps, especially nowadays, to other members of the community. As this happens, at least for the top teams, the knowledge accumulates, and the canon needs to expand with them, or else it gets restrictive and antiquated. In addition, freezing the canon to ask about the same topics over and over again does nothing to fix problems in the canon as it stands. The current high school canon on social sciences, for example, is pretty small compared to that in literature: there are maybe 5-10 economists that ever come up, barely any linguistics, and so on. One of the great things about canon expansion is that it allows us to move into richer, more diverse topics. By freezing it now, and letting it stagnate, no wealth of knowledge is added to the canon. By slowly expanding it to go with the rate of teams getting better, we can slowly provide greater benefits for players, as well as the game.

Or maybe the solution really is just for top teams to play more college tournaments, I don't know.

A problem that we have is that if we push our freshmen to work to get better, they will quit. And our seniors and juniors are just as lazy that pushing would not change their mind. If schools do not have people who care to put the time in, then why let them get slaughtered in high level tournaments?

leftsaidfred wrote:There's nothing wrong with not wanting to get better at quiz bowl - it's the assumption that everything should be aimed towards these non-improving teams that is the issue.

Exactly. Hence I think a split in QB could be coming within the next 5 years.

There's already different levels of quiz bowl, which in turn creates different types of question/tournament demands. As it's a virtual impossibility that every team will gain a commitment to the activity seen in the top schools, lower level tournaments will continue. This includes both good and bad lower level tournaments.

The only way teams will move up the tiers of quiz bowl team quality is if members of the team, whether coaches or players, take it upon themselves to improve. The biggest question is what can we as individuals do to assist in this process? Answering this is the key to getting other teams to reach the desired level of play.

To answer Dr. Chuck's question - I think it's impossible. There are certain students who enjoy learning, and the community can definitely help them get better. There are a lot more students who do It's Academic for TV exposure, resume building, coolness ... whatever. They could careless about good quizbowl, and I don't think there's much we can do to change that. The most we could do is to try to reach those who had never been exposed to good quizbowl - if they like it, they'll probably move on to it.

Daichi - Walter Johnson; Vanderbilt; U of Chicago.Daichi's Law of High School Quizbowl: the frequency of posting in the Quizbowl Resource Center is proportional to the likelihood of being overrated.

First, thanks for the kind words, Matt. I don't agree that it's counterproductive to use It's Academic to learn important things, but it does tend to be conterproductive to learning more complicated and obscure things. And I'll address some of that below.

metsfan001 wrote:In addition to what Matt said, my problem here is twofold: (1) you've pretty much admitted that pyramidal questions are a step above It's Ac in a test of quizbowl ability and whatnot...

I used the term "next level" because that was the one that already had been used. I suppose choosing clearer language would have made my position better. Certainly, considering the way most of this board defines "quiz bowl," there's no question that It's Academic is inferior. And that's mostly because it does a poor job of rewarding deep knowledge. I tend to view quiz bowl differently than most of the board, and I have no problem with that, and I have no problem with the others here having their own opinions as to what's good (especially for them).

I didn't use It's Academic here to try to foist my own opinions on quiz bowl onto the community here, merely as an example of what other teams may be doing. I also don't think they're terribly important to the crux of this thread. As such, I'll do my best to keep from derailing this thread with these opinions. I'm sure they're stuck in the archives somewhere if y'all want to go searching through my early posts on the board.

metsfan001 wrote:...and (2) as such, by setting lower goals for your team, aren't you making it more difficult for them to excel beyond that?

I'm not really setting the team's goals. The team sets their goals. Periodically, we have a discussion about whether we'd like to shift our focus.

metsfan001 wrote:I'd think that it would be pretty difficult to gauge who would be ready to move "to the next level" while playing speed questions, because you never know how someone's going to do with the goals that they're given. You can have someone (like me, for example) familiar for their entire life with Jeopardy-level material, upon first encountering pyramidal QB, make an effort to get good at it and succeed therein. I'm sure that, had I focused my efforts mainly on speed questions, I would be about as good at those as I am at pyramidal ones now, but I would not be half the pyramidal player I am now.

As I see it, if my students are still learning the material they need for It's Academic, there's much more learning that will need to happen to be competitive with well-respected teams in the pyramidal format. So, for example, at an NAQT IS tournament, there's plenty for my team to learn.

metsfan001 wrote:You say this as if the entire pool of players is recycled every four years. That's not at all true, of course; instead, as players get older, they pass along information to their younger teammates, or perhaps, especially nowadays, to other members of the community. As this happens, at least for the top teams, the knowledge accumulates, and the canon needs to expand with them, or else it gets restrictive and antiquated. In addition, freezing the canon to ask about the same topics over and over again does nothing to fix problems in the canon as it stands. The current high school canon on social sciences, for example, is pretty small compared to that in literature: there are maybe 5-10 economists that ever come up, barely any linguistics, and so on. One of the great things about canon expansion is that it allows us to move into richer, more diverse topics. By freezing it now, and letting it stagnate, no wealth of knowledge is added to the canon. By slowly expanding it to go with the rate of teams getting better, we can slowly provide greater benefits for players, as well as the game.

Sure, knowledge will get passed on, but there's a limit to the knowledge that's retained. I tend to pick up things my players know that I don't. When a few years go by and I haven't had a student who knows those things (and I no longer hear them), I tend to start to forget them. Similarly, as the canon expands, there will certainly begin to be things that drop out. My point is that we don't have an infinite well of knowledge.

metsfan001 wrote:Or maybe the solution really is just for top teams to play more college tournaments, I don't know.

Actually, my first time reading for NAQT sectionals, I was disappointed I hadn't done this with one of my teams about 5 years ago. They had ability and commitment, and I never even thought to do this with them. After reading at sectionals, I remember thinking "wow, they could have done reasonably on these questions. It would have been a good learning experience." Indeed, I'd encourage any top teams to begin playing on the college circuit. In fact, I'd encourage any team to participate in any tournament that offered the best ability for them to learn and improve.

aestheteboy wrote:To answer Dr. Chuck's question - I think it's impossible. There are certain students who enjoy learning, and the community can definitely help them get better. There are a lot more students who do It's Academic for TV exposure, resume building, coolness ... whatever. They could careless about good quizbowl, and I don't think there's much we can do to change that. The most we could do is to try to reach those who had never been exposed to good quizbowl - if they like it, they'll probably move on to it.

Thanks... I also want to focus the other side of this question is how it affects college teams in recruiting among their own students, especially those who were so used to the quicker game. This rift also affects the NAQT ICT D1/D2/CC issue that is going on in the College Discussion thread. Face it: most of the students that we are talking about at the high school level will not be going to a CC. In an environment where there is even less "adult" guidance, where teams are run by the superstars of high school quiz bowl who haven't understood why some of their teammates were fed a diet of Great Auk (and liked it), and where there is no "power" to get his/her peers and teammates to practice... the rift will appear and reflect the disparity of our current institutions of higher education.

While certainly many on this board would like teams to move towards NAQT, PACE, or similar formats, I think we have to accept that there will be local and variant formats. After all, NAQT is only about ten years old and the local league may predate it. Also, in Delaware, about half the teams do only the television tournament. They usually win 0-1 matches.

You want to see quizbowl as we know it explode? Get the final round(s) of the HSNCT onto national television a la the Spelling Bee. Then lots of teams will want to do it. The documentary being filmed last and this year may help, but I imagine the viewing audience will be small.

(as evidence, look what happened to poker when ESPN picked up the World Series)

Stat74 wrote:You want to see quizbowl as we know it explode? Get the final round(s) of the HSNCT onto national television a la the Spelling Bee. Then lots of teams will want to do it. The documentary being filmed last and this year may help, but I imagine the viewing audience will be small.

(as evidence, look what happened to poker when ESPN picked up the World Series)

ESPN has aired the Final Table for a long time, but in 2003 began airing play from every day. I think that, given enough prodding, ESPN might be willing to. I mean, they already air high school basketball.

Yeah but its always hard to sell ESPN on no sports stuff. It'd be worth the try to even get ESPN2 to air it. The thing is Scripps has been around for years and years, as someone said NAQT is still an infant. Still, theres a chance in the fact that this is a hell of a lot more exciting than Spelling Bee's.

Nick PetrilliBloomfield High School 2009Freelance/Mercenary Moderator, TD, Player, and Reader

I think this has been discussed before, but the problem is that an average person sitting in front of a TV will have no clue what is being asked about. People can have fun while attempting to spell words during the spelling bee. People can play poker in their spare time. People can go outside and throw a basketball at a hoop. All of these televised events also give people time to process what is going on, as do all nationwide televised trivia shows (think how much time per question on Millionaire, 1 vs 100, etc). Most people, however, will have no clue what QB questions are talking about. From last years HSNCT championship, there was a question that you can listen to online: "It occurs in a room dressed in Second Empire" BUZZ No Exit. Would someone watching have any clue what was going on? Probably not. Neither would anyone at ESPN, in all probability. Watching good teams play well on hard questions makes for terrible TV. Games are not fun to watch if you can't process what is going on.

If there was a middle school circuit, perhaps average adults could comprehend most of what was happening. High schoolers just can learn too much.

Michael HausingerCoach, Bay City Western High Schoolformerly of University of Michigan and East Lansing High School

As I had pointed out Chip Beall hasn't been able to get back to television. College Bowl has never been able to get back to television despite the success of Jeopardy! Game shows on ESPN have come and gone; Stump the Schwab has been relegated to ESPN Classic I think. Panasonic is probably on public access in Florida. In other words, with the exception of It's Ac in DC, there's no one who wants to see high school quiz bowl the way many of us perceive it in ideal form.

The other thing to realize: very few readers in the college circuit have TV experience. David Bykowski has as a moderator, and he can tell you how different it is to be under the control of a director in the control booth. The way most NAQT readers present questions, it's hard for anyone in the audience to follow. Then the questions...

When you go to TV or radio, you have to reshift the focus of the game from the competitors to the audience. The audience likes to see conspiracies and upsets. Many in the circuit have gone beyond accepting upsets as good quiz bowl (for whatever reason), so I cannot imagine anyone being able to put these games on TV at all.

ILoveReeses wrote:As I had pointed out Chip Beall hasn't been able to get back to television. College Bowl has never been able to get back to television despite the success of Jeopardy! Game shows on ESPN have come and gone; Stump the Schwab has been relegated to ESPN Classic I think. Panasonic is probably on public access in Florida. In other words, with the exception of It's Ac in DC, there's no one who wants to see high school quiz bowl the way many of us perceive it in ideal form.

The other thing to realize: very few readers in the college circuit have TV experience. David Bykowski has as a moderator, and he can tell you how different it is to be under the control of a director in the control booth. The way most NAQT readers present questions, it's hard for anyone in the audience to follow. Then the questions...

When you go to TV or radio, you have to reshift the focus of the game from the competitors to the audience. The audience likes to see conspiracies and upsets. Many in the circuit have gone beyond accepting upsets as good quiz bowl (for whatever reason), so I cannot imagine anyone being able to put these games on TV at all.

In what universe does that make sense at all?

Nick PetrilliBloomfield High School 2009Freelance/Mercenary Moderator, TD, Player, and Reader

I'm just saying that the trend I have been seeing has sided towards extending the game so that more questions are used to break the ties. Nothing wrong with that in philosophy or theory, but accepting a less than perfect outcome for a team is somehow less desirable.

In contrast, I can say that for a lot of coaches in the general circuit who may not be as involved in the circuit (based on experience with other competitions I have run), they want to be given the chance to upset the strong team, and all of these moves wind up as disincentives for further participation. If the NE Patriots and the NY Giants had to play a best of 3 series, who would you think would win? As it is, the Giants upset the Patriots who were no doubt the best team through the season.

ILoveReeses wrote:As I had pointed out Chip Beall hasn't been able to get back to television. College Bowl has never been able to get back to television despite the success of Jeopardy! Game shows on ESPN have come and gone; Stump the Schwab has been relegated to ESPN Classic I think. Panasonic is probably on public access in Florida. In other words, with the exception of It's Ac in DC, there's no one who wants to see high school quiz bowl the way many of us perceive it in ideal form.

The other thing to realize: very few readers in the college circuit have TV experience. David Bykowski has as a moderator, and he can tell you how different it is to be under the control of a director in the control booth. The way most NAQT readers present questions, it's hard for anyone in the audience to follow. Then the questions...

When you go to TV or radio, you have to reshift the focus of the game from the competitors to the audience. The audience likes to see conspiracies and upsets. Many in the circuit have gone beyond accepting upsets as good quiz bowl (for whatever reason), so I cannot imagine anyone being able to put these games on TV at all.

In what universe does that make sense at all?

In the NCAA basketball tournament, upsets are generally viewed as good things...

Michael HausingerCoach, Bay City Western High Schoolformerly of University of Michigan and East Lansing High School

ILoveReeses wrote:As I had pointed out Chip Beall hasn't been able to get back to television. College Bowl has never been able to get back to television despite the success of Jeopardy! Game shows on ESPN have come and gone; Stump the Schwab has been relegated to ESPN Classic I think. Panasonic is probably on public access in Florida. In other words, with the exception of It's Ac in DC, there's no one who wants to see high school quiz bowl the way many of us perceive it in ideal form.

The other thing to realize: very few readers in the college circuit have TV experience. David Bykowski has as a moderator, and he can tell you how different it is to be under the control of a director in the control booth. The way most NAQT readers present questions, it's hard for anyone in the audience to follow. Then the questions...

When you go to TV or radio, you have to reshift the focus of the game from the competitors to the audience. The audience likes to see conspiracies and upsets. Many in the circuit have gone beyond accepting upsets as good quiz bowl (for whatever reason), so I cannot imagine anyone being able to put these games on TV at all.

In what universe does that make sense at all?

In the NCAA basketball tournament, upsets are generally viewed as good things...

I'm pretty certain that Dr. Chuck is referring to upsets in the sense of worse teams beating better ones rather than the sense of a lower-seed beating a higher seed.

ILoveReeses wrote:As I had pointed out Chip Beall hasn't been able to get back to television. College Bowl has never been able to get back to television despite the success of Jeopardy! Game shows on ESPN have come and gone; Stump the Schwab has been relegated to ESPN Classic I think. Panasonic is probably on public access in Florida. In other words, with the exception of It's Ac in DC, there's no one who wants to see high school quiz bowl the way many of us perceive it in ideal form.

The other thing to realize: very few readers in the college circuit have TV experience. David Bykowski has as a moderator, and he can tell you how different it is to be under the control of a director in the control booth. The way most NAQT readers present questions, it's hard for anyone in the audience to follow. Then the questions...

When you go to TV or radio, you have to reshift the focus of the game from the competitors to the audience. The audience likes to see conspiracies and upsets. Many in the circuit have gone beyond accepting upsets as good quiz bowl (for whatever reason), so I cannot imagine anyone being able to put these games on TV at all.

A televised NAQT game could be done. Like in MATHCOUNTS, show the question on the screen while also showing the moderator reading the question.

However I believe a well done documentary that is advertised extensively could inspire teams that haven't been exposed to good quizbowl. I remember in 5th grade I was watching a spelling bee documentary (it's famous..can't remember the exact title), and it almost got me to consider doing the Spelling Bee. A documentary showing how teams prepare, how teams had improved over the year, and snippets of game winning questions answered would definitely do this. Add some humor and you've got a very good documentary.

Getting on TV is the worst thing that could happen to quizbowl. It would either involve NAQT changing its game format, difficulty, and tournament structure (hello, single-elimination!) to what a TV show demands, and people flocking to the now-terrible NAQT over the other formats, which would be a disaster; or, something like the NAC getting back on TV, which would also involve people (and you'd be surprised at who would do it) defecting from real quizbowl to the lure of being on ESPN-14 at 4 in the morning, which would of course be an even bigger disaster. Any sensible person who is concerned about good quizbowl will never let those cameras get anywhere near a tournament.